Posted on 09/10/2015 1:41:08 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: Ted Cruz -- a lot just broke here. I mean, during the break a lot of stuff just broke, so I'm just now getting it organized. Ted Cruz has put out a letter proposing the plan that we mentioned two days ago on this program to stop the Iran deal based on Obama's failure to comply with a Corker Bill condition that he disclose the entirety of the agreement.
Again, two ways to go about this Iran deal. There's intellectual heft on all sides and there's valid reasons to do both ways. One side says go after it on the basis of a treaty because it is one. The Constitution's very clear. Don't let Obama get away with doing something that's not a treaty when it is. And then there's the other way which basically requires the Republicans and the Congress to illustrate, to point out that the deal is invalid because Obama's not followed the law. And the law is the precious Corker-Cardin Bill, which, on one hand, made opposing it practically impossible because of the convoluted way it reversed the voting procedure and the objective of the voting procedure.
In a treaty you need 67 votes of support in the Senate to ratify it. The Corker Bill, "No, no, no, no, we're gonna make it so that we only need 33 votes to stop it," essentially. So it never had a chance of failing if they wanted to deal with it the treaty way because the Corker Bill convoluted everything. But there was another element to the Corker Bill that required the president to fully disclose everything in the Iran deal, including the two side deals on a certain date, which was July 19th. That was not complied with.
As such, the Corker Bill is law. It was passed, then signed, and Obama is in violation of it. And the Republicans in the Senate and the House are perfectly within their rights under the separation of powers and the whole concept that the law's the law and we have a rule of law, they're perfectly within their rights to assert that the Iran deal is invalid because Obama has violated the statute that he signed regarding its passage and approval, the Corker-Cardin Bill. It's no more complicated than that. I spent a lot of time on this two days ago.
Now Ted Cruz has put out a letter proposing a plan that is right along the lines of that which we've been discussing. There are four points. This is not the whole letter. These are just the four point highlights. Number one, Republicans should find that Obama did not provide the agreement, so the 60-day congressional review period never started. In other words, Obama did not give them the details. He was required by law to provide Congress with the details, which is something he hasn't done. Look at the pan-Pacific trade deal. You had to go to a super-secret room to read it. You couldn't take any notes outside the super-secret room, and you couldn't tell anybody what you had read.
Obamacare. It's become pretty clear that the vast majority of people that voted for it had not read it, and you remember Nancy Pelosi saying, "Well, we gotta pass it, we have to sign it before we find out what's in it." So this is par for the course. Obama's been thumbing his nose at Congress as much as they'll let him get away with it, which is quite a bit. But in this case they could find, they should find that Obama did not provide the terms of the agreement. So the 60-day congressional review, which is part -- that's another thing. Treaties, months and months and months are allowed. The Law of the Sea treaty, how long was that debated, for years. So should this have been.
But Corker, they thought they were being cute, they put a 60-day limit in it. This 60-day congressional review limit supersedes treaty clause in this case, but it never started because Obama didn't comply. That's the period that Corker and McConnell are trying to rush us through by September 17th, which lets Obama win with 34 votes in the Senate. That's what the Corker Bill basically does. It lets Obama win with 34 votes instead of 67.
Now, it's clear that just with that first point in Cruz's letter, this whole thing could be defeated, but McConnell and Boehner and Corker are trying to rush this thing through by September 17th so that they will get past the 60-day congressional review and make it look like it's all legal. The second point that Cruz makes in this letter is that McConnell should find that if Obama had submitted the deal as a treaty, it would have been soundly rejected, which it would have. They never have 67 votes for anything in the Senate, not even this. And a treaty requires two-thirds at 67. Remember the Corker Bill did everything upside down and ended up saying that all Obama needed was 34 votes to get this dangerously stupid deal authorized.
....yet Cruz voted for the Corker bill.
I don’t get it. If the GOP doesn’t have enough votes to overcome a dem filibuster, why don’t they make them truly filibuster? If the safety of the free world depends on it and we’re talking about parts of Israel and possibly the U.S. getting vaporized, don’t you think we should go beyond procedural and into a true filibuster?
Valerie Jarrett STARTED the Iranian nuke "DEAL" negotiations IN SECRET YEARS AGO. Yet Congress ignores.
I voted yes on final passage because it may delay, slightly, President Obama’s ability to lift the Iran sanctions and it ensures we will have a Congressional debate on the merits of the Iran deal.
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-why-i-voted-yes-for-corker-iran-bill/#ixzz3lN4Gf558
- - - - - - -
The problem is they are not following the law.
And if you’re stupid that’s all you know.
The problem is that they are all playing for the same f&cking team. Every single thing that comes out of DC is theater. Cruz was either too stupid/naive to understand the ramifications of voting for the Corker bill or he was fully on board with where we ended up today...regardless of what he ‘says’.
Judge them by their actions not their words.
Cruz voted for the bill. That is the bottom line kiddo...nothing he ‘says’ now really matters does it?
And if we follow the law from the Bill, this Iran deal cannot be approved now.
Those that let Obama become president share responsibility in this.
I voted for Mitt.
...and if they continue to be stupid enough to trust McConnell and Obama then they aren’t smart enough to lead this country.
We don’t have to trust them. We just have to hold them to the law.
Because we have a POS as Senate Majority Leader, whom I loathe with a passion.
They are all on the same team. Wake up and accept that fact then everything becomes much more clear. Not a single member of the DC cartel gives 2 shits about you and I.
In the “agreement”, the US is required to come to the defense of Iran if its nuclear facilities are attacked. Am I wrong on this?
If I am right, how is this not a treaty?
Why don’t we follow the Corker formula and pass a law that says you only need 34 votes to impeach a President, instead of 67? That would be constitutional if this is. Of course, neither one is constitutional. A majority cannot vote to take away the right of 34 Senators to scuttle a treaty.
....yet Cruz voted for the Corker bill.Yea some constitutional lawyer huh?
The man is either a fraud or a complete idiot.
Why he would have voted away his constitutional right of veto is beyond disgusting.
If there was anything that came across this idiots desk to fight THIS deal would have been it.
He may end up with blood on his hands as a result of this lunacy.
I hope ALL the parties signatory to this Iran deal rot in hell.
Bingo, it would have been a done deal by now.
And there are a lot of ways to do serious damage to this “treaty” if conservatives are smart enough to use them. The Michigan and Oklahoma attorney’s general are calling on other states to impose their own sanctions on Iran (Based on a precedent set by a 2008 Ted Cruz supreme court win) Michigan has had sanctions against Iran since 2013 and it irritates Obama but there really isn’t anything he can do about it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/3333815/posts
When I favored voting for the Democrat in Kentucky instead of McConnell, I was met with a lot of disapproval here. This is why. He does way more damage as majority leader than if we were in a minority, or if we had a majority of 53 instead of 54.
Boehner is in denial about his upcoming opposition....
Claims he got a standing o, by members of House, today. I’d like to know just who stood up for this sorry @zz.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.